Balancing Infantry and Armor in an RTS

Here's a nifty thought I had. What is the prevailing opinion on defining specific roles for certain units and their counterparts in other factions if applicable?

I ask this question because I'm considering re-writing my Jumpjet aircraft in my Command and Conquer Yuri's Revenge mod to utilize all hitscan attacks (except for one which uses distributed more rapid fire but light damage missile barrages).

One unit named the "Harrow" (Actually a Reporting Name in the setting) is an attack helicopter in the traditional sense. It currently fires a rapid fire Gatling cannon that erases infantry in a really big hurry and fires anti-tank missiles. Another is called the Viper and it utilizes an explosive but rapid fire cannon for infantry and missiles for tanks. (It's also the fastest of jumpjet aircraft.) A third is called the Hunter and it utilizes a general purpose Gatling cannon that just shreds everything with its effectively maximum rate of fire.

My plan changes 2 of them different. The Hunter won't really change but the Harrow would turn into a nose mounted 37mm anti-armor autocannon dealing moderate damage at a decent fire rate and twin anti-infantry Gatling gun turrets on the wingtips. The Viper would gain a laser based attack (one or two attacks per salvo I'm not yet sure which) and would be anti-air capable.

In the end they all serve a different niche. The Viper becomes air to air capable. The Harrow is multi-mission capable and the Hunter is just rapid fire goodness.

A fourth aircraft the Yalu-class airship is the missile slugger that has twice the armor of any other jumpjet or fighter aircraft.

I wanted to change this because missile based helicopters are just cliche and they don't seem fun anymore.

I dislike specific rolls as a general weapon, and prefer that they be unlockables with the more general stuff being the basic units.

On the other side of the argument, I'm perfectly okay with specialization and specific roles. It helps identify what is good against what (generally), it's more efficient (at least from a story perspective, though usually from a gameplay perspective as well), and it works.

Not quite on the topic of balancing infantry and armor, but I suppose it's close enough.

How many viable playstyles do you think there should be for a faction on average? What is the optimal was of achieving this number?

For example: Terrans in SC II really have two: Bio and Mech. Their race is set up so that everything really complements one build or another, although there is overlap.

As many as you can think of. I do this in my mod. Massed air attacks are powerful and can dominate pure tank offensives and punish a lack of prepared AA. (Be warned, AA is weaker than you think. While a SAM site may take down an attack helo type in 8 hits the helo can fire at 8-30 times*

Conversely sieging an enemy base with artillery slowly tightening the noose around him is perfectly viable. As is simply zerging the enemy with as many tanks and support vehicles as you can.

Infantry have special use there. Basic infantry can garrison civilian structures or player built bunkers providing an extended range base defense that is quite competent at stopping a couple vehicles or a squad of infantry. Likewise each faction has an IFV type that allows them to fire from the vehicle while it is on the move. (Battle Fortress-type ability.) Those vehicles when used right can devastate enemy mechanized and infantry formations but they are rather weak to certain variations of the Protectorate UCV, heavy base defenses, artillery (especially guided missile or high velocity type), and just plain zerging them.

There are tons of viable strategies in that mod and while the simplest may be the first to be thought of like using pure Expeditionary Tanks (Laser tank with heavy armor, good speed and a more rapid fire laser that can shoot either land or air), they have tons of weaknesses including but not limited to being zerged, being hit from the air by a powerful enough strike, naval interdiction (seriously ships are fucking powerful here), continuous artillery barrage, prepared heavy defenses, and hit and run style attacks.

I don't believe RTS games should pigeonhole players into using only 1-3 strategies against everything.

But how many of those builds are simple variations on a core build?

Strategy should not be wholly dependent on the tools available to you, but should also count for the tools available to the enemy. The equation should not be purely rock-paper-scissors either but should account for terrain, combat distance, and other factors.

This is why I play stuff like European Escalation and not Starcraft. (Though one could argue sufficient artillery is a hard counter to everything in EE.)

Obviously, but looking at a more macroeconomic viewpoint, a build should be reasonably capable of handling pretty much anything that comes it way, unless it's a rush or cheese.

edited 12th Apr '12 5:41:43 PM by MetaSkipper

i've come up with a good balence in my AD&D's army control. (it's hopfully going to be a MMORTS some day.) it's highly element based and has a rock paper sccissors fight style. (fire beats earth. earth beats air. air beats water. water beats fire.) creatures elements can be mixed for great tactical effect.

Why?

This is a key assumption in people's thoughts on the subject but it really doesn't follow from any realistic expectation.

edited 12th Apr '12 5:52:37 PM by Night

Let us suppose, for a moment, that we cannot reliably predict to satisfactory accuracy, what our opponent is doing. Therefore, our build will most likely be decided by what we feel most comfortable with. However, if we do a highly specialized build, we open ourselves up to loss by build disadvantage.

What do you mean? Building order as in building buildings? Well there isn't much variation (engine limitations are in part why) in building techtree.

However the way things do depend on each other you can make completely different strategy builds and have useful qualities and there is nothing in common to another unit build.

For instance a power strategy I implemented into the Brutal level AI employs 24 Conqueror tanks (basic main battle tank of the Eurasian Defense League faction), 12 Kashtan combat support vehicles (rapid fire autocannon for ground, long range "Grazer" Missiles for air) and 12 Katyusha Launchers]. It can and does whup the shit out of other Brutal AI if the "victim" is unprepared. (And not just Brutal AI. I've been rolled by such attacks before and I built the strategy!) It gathers outside the enemy base then hunts for the nearest enemy it can attack at once and goes for that. It's a combination of tanks, anti-aircraft and artillery rolled into one powerful mechanized offensive. I use the same thing as the player albeit more intelligently than a scripted AI.

Conversely I can achieve similar effectiveness by building 12 T-X Mammoth tanks (think original Red Alert 1 type only with flak autocannons instead of missiles for anti-air) and a half dozen Nodong ballistic missile launchers. (they have extreme range but the missile is interceptable by some Protectorate technologies. Define "extreme range"? How does 40 cells sound?) Similar cost but later tech level and similar effectiveness for a smaller unit footprint. Neither unit build has anything in common with each other unit wise save maybe paratroopers thrown in to spice it up.

I can also do other things such as IFV raids/rushes, air strikes (be they Mi-42 "Harrow" attack helicopters armed with twin 12.7mm Yak-B Gatling guns and a 37mm anti-tank autocannon, MiG-X "Foreman" multi-role fighters, or Yalu-class airships using a distributed fire missile bombardment), naval bombardments (the EDL battlecruiser-type has the second longest range in the game second only to the Protectorate Aircraft Carrier), pincer attacks using two different unit builds, mash up some builds into commonality, and more. And that's just with one faction!

Let us instead suppose for a moment that you are forced to actually scout, set up a picket line, or do some other form of sane behavior, so that you may see what is coming and counter it properly, rather than merely having a pre-defined sequence of things to build which are sufficient to counter all enemies. Let us suppose that there is a point to recon in force or that you can accomplish something with it.

In fact, given the increasing demand for map control in modern games, the idea that you can't see what the enemy is doing bespeaks serious failures in your efforts to play the game.

Again, this expectation of "builds" has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with the increasingly scripted nature of RTS. People who lose the recon battle in a mobile environment usually lose the battle period.

edited 12th Apr '12 6:08:17 PM by Night

Like...

I wouldn't consider Marine+Marauder+Medivac a different kind of build compared to Marine+Medivac+Siege Tank; they both have Mn M as a base.

However, Bio (Mn M base) is different than Mech (Hellion+Siege Tank base).

You can scout, but how much can scouting bring you? Can you prove your opponent has not juked you? Can you prevent your opponent from aggressively denying scouting? Also, how much info can you really gleam from a glace?

And yes, map control is important, but in those first few minutes, you are playing effectively blind. Until the first offensive, you cannot know what your opponent has.

edited 12th Apr '12 6:12:10 PM by MetaSkipper

I do believe you've just realized what strategy means as opposed to scripted behavior and whoever is better with following their script wins.

Continue down this path.

Thank you for insulting my intelligence. My feelings have now been hurt, and I fully intend on suing you for emotional trauma.

On a more serious note, my original point stands: your pick your build int eh first few moments blind, and though you should tech switch according to your opponent's maneuvers, it is usually wise to pick a first build that can survive a variety of situations.

edited 12th Apr '12 6:23:07 PM by MetaSkipper

I personally prefer picking a play style over picking a build.

Do define playstyle. This may be a semantics argument.

Massive number of cheap units vs small number of expensive units or units with a bunch of abilities. I feel that making any "race" default to one of those and have few other options is too limiting.

But isn't that.... every strategy, one way or another. The definition of "playstyle" is a very broad one. However, a "build" is a specific order of construction used to maximize efficiency and/or speed.

Is it possible to make a lot of playstyles/builds possible? How about competitively viable?